Private Lives Public Faces: Where Do You Draw the Line?

An iconic industrialist goes to the Supreme Court to protect his right to privacy. But does Ratan Tata's rage answer any of the questions raised by the tapes?

advertisement

S Prasannarajan

December 3, 2010

ISSUE DATE: December 13, 2010

UPDATED: December 3, 2010 20:26 IST

Ratan Tata shares one sentiment with many fellow Indians. He feels violated. The difference is in the degree. Tata, one of India's iconic industrialists, is outraged over the public consumption of his private conversation with a lobbyist on his payroll, Niira Radia. For lesser citizens, it's all about the violation of their faith in the system itself: a nation looted by a disgraced Cabinet minister; journalists struggling for vindication in primetime soap operas; and a Government that shows no signs of conviction

in facing up to the truth. Tata has reason for concern, and perhaps even anger. So far, only 5 per cent of the transcripts are in the public domain. Who knows what the rest, still protected by Government secrecy, contain. The Supreme Court has deemed the tapes so sensitive and important that it has ensured their safekeeping through direct custody of the material. These tapes have the potential of tarnishing the carefully protected mystique of the Tata business house.

On November 29, Tata filed a petition in the Supreme Court, invoking Article 21 of the Constitution which ensures his fundamental right to life and personal liberty as a citizen. His petition argues that the publication of conversations between him and Radia is an invasion of his privacy. He has asked the court to "direct the Government to conduct through the CBI or any other authority a thorough inquiry into the manner in which these secret records were, contrary to the rules, made available and/or became available to those not authorised to so receive the recordings and file a report before the court." The petition also wants the ministry of home, finance, the director-general of income tax and the CBI to "take steps to immediately retrieve and recover as far as possible all recordings that have been removed from their custody". The Supreme Court in a 1997 judgment had said, "Telephone tapping is a serious invasion of an individual's privacy." Tata wants more than the protection of his privacy. He wants the tapes protected from further public gaze as well.

Tata's anger answers none of the questions raised by the tapes, which have already become the unofficial narrative of power brokerage in Delhi. His rage raises new questions about the old conflict between private life and public interest - and whether the business interests of the private sector are legitimately within the public domain. Tata's argument is that his conversations with Radia are purely personal and have no relevance to the allegations which are under investigation. In the published tapes, Tata's eloquence is mostly confined to "Yeah yeah" and "Okay, all right", though he is more forthcoming when it comes to his aversion to "black-tie" dinners or his advice to Radia who is waiting for an appropriate occasion to wear her Roberto Cavalli gown. If these are the disclosures he is angry about, there is indeed an invasion of the private. But the tapes also contain voices that refer, even if obliquely, to Tata's involvement in corporate rivalries and his interest in former telecom minister A. Raja (see box: Too Close For Disclosure).

Can he invoke the rights of a private individual as guaranteed in the Constitution when he is a public figure? After all, the private sector is funded by public money. The point, however, is whether corporate power can influence policy and Cabinet formation. Says Mumbai-based criminal lawyer Nitin Pradhan: "Public order means transparent administration. The tapes could have been protected if they were not related to corruption. Tata says that he could not sleep for the entire night when a minister asked for bribe to start an airline. Then why are the Radia tapes giving him sleepless nights? There cannot be two standards. He should be open if there is nothing inappropriate. A private person becomes a public personality when he starts taking interests in society's issues. Tata is a big industrialist. He should apologise to the nation if he has done anything inappropriate."

Even those who sympathise with Tata's privacy case are cautious in their defence. Says retired police officer Kiran Bedi, "The right to privacy exists as long as there is no criminality involved. Only portions dealing with violations of public interest should be highlighted." Tata, though, wants more than the restoration of his privacy. His petition asks the court to direct the Government to "ensure that no further publication of these recordings... appears in the media". His demand for a total freeze on the tapes indicates, at the very least, that there might be revelations about business practices that could impair the Tata reputation for integrity. Equally, there is a case to be made that full disclosure is in the public interest for it reveals the murky ways in which decisions are made and lucrative favours given.

Tata's worry about his empire's reputation is justifiable because so much sunlight has fallen on the aura. The first case of Tata taking a battering happened in 1997 when his company was accused of funding the outlawed ULFA. The Tata legacy lost a bit of its sheen when his Nano project got embroiled in the farmers' agitation over the company's acquisition of agricultural land. The project was then shifted to Gujarat. The Congress party in the state protested against the unprecedented sops and demanded a "white paper" on the agreement signed by the Narendra Modi Government and Tata Motors. Tata made the surprise announcement at Dehradun recently that he was asked to pay a Rs 15-crore bribe to get clearance to set up an international airlines in collaboration with Singapore Airlines. Tata Steel has problems with a 5.5-million tonne per annum plant in Chhattisgarh over farmers' compensation package. In Dhamra Port, the company's refusal to consider suspension of dredging work has invited the ire of conservationists. Tata is getting used to controversies.

Still, in this saga of lies and audio tapes, Tata's privacy merges with the larger issue of whether the end justifies the means. There are moments in the life of a nation when method validates message. The biggest such moment in history was the American Supreme Court's judgment in 1971 that allowed The New York Times and The Washington Post to resume the publication of a series of articles based on the leaked 7,000-page Pentagon Papers. The court said the government's attempt to ban publication bears "a heavy burden of presumption against its constitutionality". The Nixon government has not "met that burden". (The Pentagon Papers chronicled the secret history of the US war in Vietnam. The court came to the rescue of the press on the 15th day after the Nixon administration had gagged The New York Times in the name of national security.) In the wake of WikiLeaks, it's the Pentagon-Papers paranoia all over again. As the leakage of more than 2,50,000 diplomatic cables reveals the unsavoury truth about the way Washington sees the world, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoes Nixon: "This disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests. It is an attack on the international community." Not just Tata, governments anywhere hate the naked truth.

The gridlock in Parliament over a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) is, however, of a different dimension. Privately, Congressmen wonder why the Government cannot accept the Opposition demand for a JPC particularly when the chairman of the committee will be from the Congress. But the prime minister has taken a position considered firm by his allies and obstinate by his foes. He has told Sonia Gandhi that continuation as PM will become untenable if he is summoned as a witness by the JPC. The Congress is willing to ride out the political risk of a deadlocked Parliament because the alternative decision, a new prime minister, is unthinkable until Rahul Gandhi declares himself ready for the job.

Ratan Tata is not alone. The Government and a section of the media, which have an equal stake in a country vandalised, are also afraid of the truth. It's not a private matter any longer. with Nivedita Mukherjee, Kiran Tare and bureau reports

Get real-time alerts and all the news on your phone with the all-new India Today app. Download from